Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-10-27
THE ANARCHISTS CASE.
Argn0ents heeun I'm the U. .. supreme
Court.

crowd Of attorneys and curious people waited
IN the United States Supreme Court room to-day
In hopes OF hearing the arguments in the anar-
chists cases for two hours before their patience
was rewarded. At IL o'clock, an hour before the
meetng OF the court, all the seats allotted to the
pubic were occupied, and many people were
standing near the door. Mr.. Solomon, one
OF the attorneys for the anarchists, was the
nrst person to take a seat within the bar. His
long white hair and beard attracted attention to
MIN as ne sat there alone, leaning on his gold
headed cane with his eyes turned upon the gilded
chair.
The only representatives of the court present for
on the wall Almost as many ladies' as men were
attracted by curiosity to the court, and many OF
.ne sn w wers Obliged to stand. One man came In
WIN uapy carried on his shoulder, but he soon
departed. BY half-past IL it was impossible for
any one 70 get through the main door TO the court
fIed nm me e space reserved for members OF the bar
to meet ~ 'S
LARGE NUMBER OF PROMINENT LAWYERS
were assembled. Among them sat Mrs. Lockwood,
win her bonnet on, but the strings united. Mr..
tucker was the irst to take his seat at the table
lowed BY General Butler, who wore a full
the the, outson-bole. Next came solicitor-General
pc AIRED Butler sat with Pryor on his left and
Tucker on his right hand, all busy looking over
paPets anu law books. The counsel for the State
saI AZ q liable TO the right. The frst was the at
torney general OF Illinois, q little dark man with
S,n sun iace. Next to him was Assistant Attor,
sat al the end Of the table
DISAPPOINTMENT.
AT II O'Clock the coming OF the court was an
nounced, and Chief Justice Waite and all the asso-
ciate Justices nled In through the side door and
LOOK tnelr places on the bench. There was
SUI SILL among me lawyers and look OF expect.
ancy on the countenances OF the people
assemnieo, put there was no mention OF
anarchists Simply some lawyers were admitted
put their heads together and were arranging
papers as If about TO begin their arguments
a aIs n tai snarpfeatured man. with gray hair
70 say: a few minutes patient listening
dlsc0seo the fact that he was arguing the case OF
rennery. Both sides OF the case were argued, and
s s9ts, people listened patiently until i've minutes
PATIENCE REWARDED.
Gen. Butler. Mr.. Pryor and Mr.. Tucker, who had
stepped from the room during the argument re
turned. Gen. Butler addressed the court, and the
anarchists case was up. He asked an allotment o:
Time and the court gave three hours for a side:
MI: Tucker then stepped forward and opened the
he argued that 1t was not necessary to show an
absolute repugnance between the rulings OF a
M unepai court and any part Of the
rulings Of the court. and the constitution
TO Sye the the
citizen TO come before the Supreme Court for
lustice, Whose rights under the constitution
OF municipal court. The Supreme Court, he said,
was properly open to any man who finGS Oppres-
sion IN the municipal courts.
connlct between The rulings OF the Municipal
Court and the Constitution gave the SupremeC Court
jurisdiction; repugnance between the rulings Of the
court ana The Constitution was ground for 3 re-
lnls case raised question never before Raised and
IL was the duty OF the court to consider 1t.
Mr. tucker argued that the Illinois court has
violated the fourth and fourteenth amendments OF
the constitution. He closed with very eloquent
appeal TO the court.
Attorney Hunt opened the case for the State Of
llunols. ana was speaking when The STARS re-
port closed.
THE POINTS INVOLVED.
Inc main contention OF the counsel for the an
archists Is that by the statute OF Illinois, and by
the action OF the State court they the anarchists
were convicted OF capital Offense without due
process OF law, contrary TO the guarantees OF the
fourteenth amendment: that due process OF law
Implies and requires trial by an impartial jury;
that the Illinois statute makes competent
Juror with precOnceived and present
opinion as to the guilt OF the accused; that 1t is
not therefore, due process OF law" abridges "the
privileges or immunities OF citizens OF The United
states" by denying the accused "the right to
trial by impartial jury" audis unconstitutional
Mr. Pryors elaboration OF these points In his argu-
ment before the Supreme Court has already been
published In The STAR. The attorney general OF
limos replies to these points, In brief submitted
10 the court, that to warrant the issuance OF the
writ It must appear from the record-(D That there
Is Federal question involved; and ~ 1t must ap-
pear from the record that such question was raised
and decided In the State court and lie denies that
these conditions are met. On the first point he
says, In substances:
The fourteenth amendment declares
mai ~
snal aDridge che privileges or tmmunities or citi-
Gems Of the United states nor shall any State de-
PIse any persoa OF hie liberty or property with
wtnin us jurisdiction the equal protection OF the
The record win show that the complaint is not
that the State has made or Is enforcing iaw
which deprves the petitioners OF any OF the priy1
ieges or immunities guaranteed by that section,
out that they are deprived Of rights by an errone-
Gus construction OF the law placed upon IL by the
trial court Of the State.
Petitioners did not claim in the Supreme Court
Of the State that the Illinois act OF 1874 was re-
pugnant TO the Constitution, treaties or laws OF
the United states, nor that the authority OF the
court was exercised under It, but that the act was
CONSTITUTIONAL and valid, and the court eXerc sed
It's power IN violation OF that law.
PeutlOnerS were tried Ia the courts OF the State
due process Of law 1t is not material that this or
another court might have ruled differently under
the law.
"Due process Of law" is in accordance with the
A trial by jury in suits at common law pending
In the State courts is not privilege or immunity
OF national citizenship, which the States are for
hidden by the Fourteenth amendment 10 abridge.
II Is within the discretion or the legislature to
declare now an Impartial jury shall be obtained.
On the second point he contends that 1t does not
appear arirmatively from the record that Federal
question was raised and decided in the StaUe
court.
Objection is made to consideration OF the per-
sonnet or the jury which tried the petitioners on
the ground that the inquiry is as to the cOnsttu-
tonaiiy Of the jury law or Illinois, and not as To
how state court may have construed that law.
In conclusion the attorney general cites the
statutes OF several states to show that they have
passed laws relating to the qualifications OF jurors
similar TO the law OF Illinois. OF which the validity
Is brought In question In this case, These States
rko nsoc CoIorodn Mton,,, H,a,,, VI. o,,a